We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Warning: JavaScript is required for some functionalities of this page. Please enable the use of JavaScript in your browser. Log In
Register My Account
Log Out (%1$s)

COMMUNITY RULES: The Community Guidelines include important information about the rules we expect everyone to follow when using the DDO Forums. CLICK HERE for the Community Rules.

Trouble Logging in? Remember: your community login is the same as your game login!

Known Issue: Black Screen With Visible UI: Some Intel users may find that when DirectX 10 is enabled, only their UI is visible and the rest of their screen is black. If this occurs, we recommend you disable DX10, enable DX9, and restart the game client.

Armor and Mitigation Changes

I wanted to jump in and talk about some upcoming changes we are working on.

We have been looking at player feedback and we wanted to make changes to the game to open up more templates and character types. We are currently fairly happy with the high end potential of casters and characters who wear no armor or light armor and use Evasion. These characters can kite and use magic to do fairly well in our content.

The characters that seem to be falling behind are the heavily armored characters. Part of the problem is that they can’t use Evasion, and part of the problem is that armor doesn’t really offer that much more armor class than robes or light armor. We have been discussing this a lot lately.

We don’t want to hurt Evasion builds. We would rather bring the mitigation of armor and shields to those levels. Our only caveat is we don’t want Evasion builds to be able to reach the highest levels of physical mitigation on top of their existing defenses.

Here are some of the changes we are considering.

Physical Resist Rating
The first change is to prepare Physical Resist Rating for use in the armor changes. The formula for the rating will change to the following formula, with the resulting multiplier applied to all physical damage.

150 / (150 + PRR)

This progression follows the current formula very closely out to 300 and then this formula is more generous at those higher end values.

As examples, a PRR of 50 would offer a damage multiplier of 0.75, a PRR of 100 would offer a damage multiplier of 0.6, and a PRR of 200 would offer a damage multiplier of 0.4285.

Magical Resist Rating
In addition, we are adding a new value called Magical Resist Rating. The formula for the rating will be the same as for PRR, with the resulting multiplier applied to all magical damage.

150 / (150 + PRR)

This new rating will apply to most non-physical damage sources including spells, elemental damage, poisons, lingering damage, and similar effects.

It is our intention that existing magical items that provide PRR would also provide MRR.

Armor and Ratings
Armor now has a base level of mitigation through these ratings. Unenchanted armor has Physical Resist Rating as part of its mitigation, and once armor has an enchantment of at least +1 value it also gains Magical Resist Rating.

In addition, characters who are proficient with shields can also use the larger shields for defense against magical attacks that would normally require a Reflex saving throw. Instead of (or in addition to) using your Reflex saving throw to mitigate the damage you can deflect the damage off your shield. This is represented by increasing your Physical and Magical Resist Ratings against those types of attacks when using a shield. Note that you gain this additional mitigation whether you make your Reflex saving throw or not.

This means that characters with heavier armor and/or heavy or tower shields have an alternate mitigation against large area of effect attacks to help them compete in high level content with characters who use Evasion.

As an example, let’s take the case of a character built today to use heavy armor and tower shield and maximize PRR. Assuming a character had a PPR rating of 200 previously they would have a damage multiplier of ~ .4370 to physical damage.

While this mitigation is decent, characters built this way tend to die quickly once effects like Fireballs and dragon’s breath are flying around the battlefield.

Under the new system they would have a PRR and MRR of 260 which would translate to a damage multiplier of .4285 for both physical and magical damage. Against area of effect attacks (magic requiring a Reflex saving throw) this would be increased to 520, which translates to .2238.

In this example, when the heavily armored and shielded character is hit by dragon’s breath for 500 damage it would be reduced by his/her enchanted armor and shield down to 112. Meanwhile characters in light or no armor could use Evasion to attempt to negate the damage entirely.

Resist Rating Caps and Evasion
In addition, there are new or changed caps on certain scores based on the armor you are wearing.

Note that Medium and Heavy armor will continue to negate the Evasion feat.

Note that we have designed this so characters cannot gain both Evasion and the shield bonus coupled with high levels of resistance rating. This is intentional. If you see a hole in our design that allows for this please warn us!

But DPS is terrible when using a shield!
We intend to give characters who use weapon and shield additional options.

~ The Stalwart Defender and the Sacred Defender will offer enhancement options as alternates to the shield based enhancements. The enhancements that current require shields will be changed into a multi-selector, with an additional option that requires medium or heavy armor.

~ The Paladin class has fallen behind beyond the second level so we plan to look at some more compelling reasons to advance in that class.

~ We plan to introduce two new trees for shield use. The Vanguard tree will be focused on DPS while using a weapon and shield. This DPS will come from a combination of weapon damage and shield bashes. The Shieldbearer tree will be a mitigation tree that will focus on heavy armor and shield. This will also offer ways to counter enemies with active mitigation such as stuns, knock downs, and the like. These trees would be available to Fighter, Paladin and perhaps even a new class that supported heavy armor and martial abilities.

What other changes do you plan?

~ The to hit values of creatures in Epic Elite content would be rebalanced so high Armor Class builds will have some mitigation.

~ We plan to introduce two new trees for shield use. The Vanguard tree will be focused on DPS while using a weapon and shield. This DPS will come from a combination of weapon damage and shield bashes. The Shieldbearer tree will be a mitigation tree that will focus on heavy armor and shield. This will also offer ways to counter enemies with active mitigation such as stuns, knock downs, and the like. These trees would be available to Fighter, Paladin and perhaps even a new class that supported heavy armor and martial abilities.

What other changes do you plan?

~ The to hit values of creatures in Epic Elite content would be re-balanced so high Armor Class builds will have some mitigation.

Sev~

OUTSTANDING

Introducing vanguard is a cavalier approach, Will you be using the dex factors as well?

thoughts

Definitely some good ideas and a step in the right direction.

However,

Why can't a light Armored Evasion build be given the MRR ability with a Shield? They are clearly taking some hit in DPS to hold a shield. Maybe give it a very small chance. I think this will swing the balance entirely too far .

Very nice news indeed. I like the idea of changing the defender trees to Medium/Heavy based and not based on shields. May cause some grief, but we've all replaced armor before.
a way to break down armor would be nice for partial return or majority return would be nice.

an automatic roll to block effects would work too. and attack rating automatically calculated for sword n board...to lesser extent of twf...

[QUOTE=Battlehawke;5351227]Definitely some good ideas and a step in the right direction.

However,

Why can't a light Armored Evasion build be given the MRR ability with a Shield? [QUOTE]

In his setup they can. MRR/PRR will be limited by armor choice. Shields (buckler and light) will impose no limits. Heavy and tower prevent evasion. so a rogue could equip a light shield and light armor and get 200 PRR/MRR with evasion.

That means they will take less then 50% of the damage they would take from a failed improved evasion save. That sounds pretty fair. considering even with 550 from a tower shield your taking 22% (vs about 24% from improved evasion plus max MRR with light armor). Looks good to me...

Tanks should take consistent damage so they can be consistently healed.

This definitely a step in the right direction. It definitely gives more of focus to actually use the heavier armors and shields (which is the type of character I like to play). I'm just hoping that the values are high enough to allow the a traditional tank to stand toe-to-toe in epic elite content. We'll see.

One thing I suggest you consider is broadening the gap between the defense medium / heavy armors provide from that of the light ones, and by the same token increase the gap between the tower shield and the large shield.

as it stands today, there's no shortage of people going for evasion S&B builds, getting both evasion and a fairly high PRR/AC
increasing the gap would serve to help those that do use medium armor (barbs bards & fvs) instead of making them fools if they don't go for light + evasion.
and the same goes for those using tower shields, severely capping their dex. these limitations do not exist on large shields, making the large shield a better defensive option than the tower in some (most?) cases

Under the new system they would have a PRR and MRR of 260 which would translate to a damage multiplier of .4285 for both physical and magical damage. Against area of effect attacks (magic requiring a Reflex saving throw) this would be increased to 520, which translates to .2238.

This sounds insanely powerful. Now only does it reduces the damage of all spells that have no saves (which there is LOT of), but it completely negates Peak damage. Peak damage is something dodge/evasion will have to bear through, even if they can negate completely a few hits, if you get unlucky and fail your rolls you can take crazy amounts of damage rapidly, and it's completely unpredictable. Having the heavier guys have a flat damage reduction to both physical AND magical damage makes them incredibly more survivable and easier to heal.

I'm not a fan of how one style is 100% reliable and the other one is a constant gamble. While running EE, the choice will be obvious: go heavy or go home.

true

Why can't a light Armored Evasion build be given the MRR ability with a Shield? QUOTE]

In his setup they can. MRR/PRR will be limited by armor choice. Shields (buckler and light) will impose no limits. Heavy and tower prevent evasion. so a rogue could equip a light shield and light armor and get 100 PRR/MRR

True, but they should not have to lose Evasion with a Heavy or Tower. It has been this way for 6 years....and reduces their defense tremendously when tanking. Rogue splash tanks, that is..

true

Originally Posted by Ovrad

This sounds insanely powerful. Now only does it reduces the damage of all spells that have no saves (which there is LOT of), but it completely negates Peak damage. Peak damage is something dodge/evasion will have to bear through, even if they can negate completely a few hits, if you get unlucky and fail your rolls you can take crazy amounts of damage rapidly, and it's completely unpredictable. Having the heavier guys have a flat damage reduction to both physical AND magical damage makes them incredibly more survivable and easier to heal.

I'm not a fan of how one style is 100% reliable and the other one is a constant gamble. While running EE, the choice will be obvious: go heavy or go home.

I for one am glad to see that steps are being taken to enhance our gaming experience

Social Justice W...arlock (5e toon)
OkarisRage, big fat purple wolf (because no need to be a bear with the new epic defensive fighting feat-getting past lives of druid and pdk so my artificer is better <3)

This sounds insanely powerful. Now only does it reduces the damage of all spells that have no saves (which there is LOT of), but it completely negates Peak damage. Peak damage is something dodge/evasion will have to bear through, even if they can negate completely a few hits, if you get unlucky and fail your rolls you can take crazy amounts of damage rapidly, and it's completely unpredictable. Having the heavier guys have a flat damage reduction to both physical AND magical damage makes them incredibly more survivable and easier to heal.

I'm not a fan of how one style is 100% reliable and the other one is a constant gamble. While running EE, the choice will be obvious: go heavy or go home.

There are options for those with evasion to not fail on a 1 - epic feat and its an option in a couple of the epic destinies from memory.

As for the MRR - maybe needs toned down a bit but lets face it there aren't that many in epic elites that don't use an evasion build of some sort with the possibly exception of casters. Don't think current enhancements that boost PRR should automatically boost MRR as well, might be an idea to keep them separate or a choice of one or other in the trees.

I assume that any resists etc will apply before MRR is applied, otherwise you could end up with situations where shield tanks are taking no damage whatsoever from spells, probably not in epic elite but in epic hard/normal possibly.

Also in terms of future balance - you have evasion builds that can be designed to avoid most magic completely except on failed saves, you have armour wearers who can dramatically reduce damage by MRR, soooo what about mages? If you start building quests with the assumption most builds have some sort of damage mitigation, then pure casters may find it awkward to stay alive unless youre expecting everyone to go for tin cans for casters

The main sticking point is non-reflex save magic damage, although admittedly most spells cast at players that do a lot of damage do tend to be AOEs. For spells with some element of no save damage, or will/fortitude save for reduced damage, evasion obviously doesn't help but from the looks of it this will still be reduced by MRR? If so evasion characters are going to be at a disadvantage compared to heavy armour users.

Suggest halving it, and not letting shields double it. Fine with the PRR and relevant multiplier. Armour stops physical damage very well. That works for me.

But giving all that 'vs magic' "DR" automatically just for it being a +1 breastplate and +2 tower shield? Surely not.

How about:

For every + on the armour or shield, it gets 10% the PRR as MRR? (values add together, calculation then done on total). So:

+5 armour is MRR equal to 50% of the armour's PRR (in line with my initial suggestion),
+5 armour and +5 shield gets you 50% the PRR of the armour plus 50% the PRR of the shield - which is of course not doubling your overall MRR, but certainly adding to the main value upon which the calculation is then made.
+6 and up gear, being epic, can then go higher than that until a theoretical +10 armour and shield tops it out at 'equal to PRR' on both?

This would seem a more balanced way to do this. I like the MRR concept, but I don't think magical defenses should quite be "all in" just for having any old piece of magic armour.

Edit: actually question re shields doubling the figures. Did you mean only during shield block? If so I retract my comment about doubling the protection. If it happens only during shield block I am 100% in favour of that particular mechanic, but still not at all on board with with the initial MRR = PRR 'just because its got a +1 on it'.

Last edited by dunklezhan; 06-09-2014 at 03:33 PM.

Originally Posted by Vargouille

The best of the best DDO players generally overperform when given a real challenge

Place take a look at some of the ACs monks are hitting without even trying.

AC is the simplest way to mitigate damage, but this change doesn't talk of AC, only PRR and MRR.

Monks in the know can gain high AC because of the benefits of the Monk's Earth Stance (up to a general 20% to all AC) that stacks with Combat Expertise (10%) for a stacking 30% to all AC. WIS and DEX also contribute, both important stats. But again, AC is an oranges and apples comparison here; many melees have very high AC to many Monks yet still have serious problems, thus this change.

The Shintao Monk gains some PRR training as a light tanker but also has Improved Evasion and the best saves of any class except Paladin. They are also prolific self-healers. They will not gain the better PRR mitigation effects as described here since there are limits to what can be added by items, as robes and outfits have no PRR.

A Monk's saving throws and miss-chance effects are their "armor," which is why the PRR change is coming to give Fighters more magic defense to go with a more beneficial PRR benefit and, still, AC. Likewise, Monks have high spell resistance that (with Evasion) also allows them to look at Fireballs and laugh while also resisting non-damaging spells such as holds. Fighters would like a little love, too, against magic. Otherwise they'll continue to be a "Superman" that goes owned by the first mind-controller that shows up with a Fascinate spell. ('Tis a comic book reference.)

I like the change as it should really help the armored people be protected and not just look like they're protected, especially against magic, while not changing the Evasion balance that unarmored or lightly-armored people enjoy and use. AC, PRR and MRR should compare to AC, Miss chance and Spell Resistance.

The only people that might be annoyed are those who like to mix and max the soon-exclusive worlds of high Evasion, shielding and armor. The Rangers and Rogues and Druids should be fine and aren't penalized here, which is good.

Dungeons & Dragons Online® interactive video game (c) 2017 Standing Stone Games LLC. All other elements (c) 2017 HASBRO, Inc. Standing Stone Games and the Standing Stone Games logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Standing Stone Games LLC. Dungeons & Dragons Online and Wizards of the Coast and their respective logos are trademarks of Wizards of the Coast LLC and are used with permission. HASBRO and its logo are trademarks of HASBRO, Inc. and are used with permission.